#thinking tools

Comprehensible Configurable Adaptive Cognitive Structure (CCACS)

Core Concept:

...

To briefly clarify my vision, it may be helpful to begin by stating that: a transparent and interpretable thinking model (based on combined top thinking tools) serves as the crucial starting point and foundational core for this concept. From there, other models/ensembles (any combo of the most effective so-called black/gray/etc. boxes) can be thoughtfully and optimally integrated or built upon this core.

My dream is to see the creation and widespread use of a maximally transparent and interpretable cognitive architecture that can be improved and become more complex (in terms of depth and quality of thinking/reasoning) without losing its transparency and interpretability. And hopefully it could be found valuable enough to meticulously consider this direction when adding or integrating other models/ensembles - which may be less, or even completely, non-transparent and non-interpretable - when creating products and systems wielding weighty consequential responsibility and potential peril through their influence on human life, health, decisions, and laws. This aligns with my deeply sincere and convinced vision.

...

I come from the world of business data analytics, where I’ve spent years immersed in descriptive and inferential statistics. That’s my core skill – crunching numbers, spotting patterns, and prioritizing clear, step-by-step data interpretation. Ultimately, my goal is to make data interpretable for informed business decisions and problem-solving. Beyond this, my curiosity has led me to explore more advanced areas like traditional machine learning, neural networks, deep learning, natural language processing (NLP), and recently, generative AI and large language models (LLMs). I'm not a builder in these domains (I'm definitely not an expert or researcher), but rather someone who enjoys exploring, testing ideas, and understanding their inner workings.

One thing that consistently strikes me in my exploration of AI is the “black box” phenomenon. These models achieve remarkable, sometimes truly amazing, results, but they don't always reveal their reasoning process. Coming from an analytics background, where transparency in the analytical process is paramount, this lack of AI’s explainability is (at least personally) quite concerning in the long run. As my interest in the fundamentals of thinking and reasoning has grown, I've noticed something that worries me: our steadily increasing reliance on this “black box” approach. This approach gives us answers without clearly explaining its thinking (or what appears to be thinking), ultimately expecting us to simply trust the results.

Black-box AI's dominance is rising, especially in sectors shaping human destinies. We're past whether to use it; the urgent question is how to ensure responsible, ethical integration. In domains like healthcare, law, and policy (where accountability demands human comprehension) what core values must drive AI strategy? And in these vital arenas, is prioritizing transparent frameworks essential for optimal and useful balance?

To leverage both transparent and opaque AI, a robust, responsible approach demands layered cognitive architectures. A transparent core must drive critical reasoning, while strategic "black box" components, controlled and overseen, enhance specific functions. This layered design ensures functionality gains without sacrificing vital understanding and trustworthiness.

...

Disclaimer: All ideas and concepts presented here are human-designed (these are my truly and deeply loved visions/daydreamings, even though I readily admit they likely verge on delusion, especially concerning the core thinking tools model/module). But, because I am neither a native English speaker nor a scientist/researcher and not experienced in writing, the information above and below has been translated, partially-edited and partially-organized by LLMs to produce a more readable and grammatical result.

...

The main idea: Comprehensible Configurable Adaptive Cognitive Structure (CCACS) -  that is, to create a unified, explicitly configurable, adaptive, comprehensible network of methods, frameworks, and approaches drawn from areas such as Problem-Solving, Decision-Making, Logical Thinking, Analytical/Synthetical Thinking, Evaluative Reasoning, Critical Thinking, Bias Mitigation, Systems Thinking, Strategic Thinking, Heuristic Thinking, Mental Models, etc. {ideally even try to incorporate at least basically/partially principles of Creative/Lateral/Innovational Thinking, Associative Thinking, Abstract Thinking, Concept Formation, and Right/Effective/Great Questioning as well} [the Thinking Tools] merged with the current statistical / generative AI / other AI approach, which is likely to yield more interpretable results, potentially leading to more stable, consistent, and verifiable reasoning processes and outcomes, while also enabling iterative enhancements in reasoning complexity without sacrificing transparency. This approach could also foster greater trust and facilitate more informed and equitable decisions, particularly in fields such as medicine, law, and corporate or government decision-making.

Initially, a probably quite labor-intensive process of comprehensively collecting, cataloging, systematizing all the valid/proven/useful methods, frameworks, and approaches available to humanity [creation of the Thinking Tools Corpus/Glossary/Lexicon/etc.], will likely be necessary. Then there will be a need (a relatively harder part) of primary abstraction (extracting common features and regularities while ignoring insignificant details) and formalization (translating generalized regularities into a strict and operable language/form). The really challenging part is the feasibility of abstracting/formalizing every valid/proven/useful thinking tool; however, wherever possible, at least a fundamental/core set of essential thinking tools should be abstracted/formalized.

Then, {probably after initial active solo and cross-testing, just to prove that they actually can solve/work as needed/expected} careful consideration must be given to the initial structure of [the Thinking Tools Grammar/Syntactic_Structure/Semantic_Network/Ontology/System/etc.] - its internal hierarchy, sequence, combinations, relationships, interconnections, properties, etc., in which these methods, frameworks, and approaches will be integrated and how: 1) first, among themselves without critical conflicts, into the initial Thinking Tools Model/Module, that can successfully work on simplified problems for initial validation / synthetic tasks; 2) second, gradually adding statistical/generative/other parts, making the Basic Think-Stat/GenAI/OtherAI Tools Model/Modular Ensemble}.

Next, to ensure the integrity of the transparent core when integrated with less transparent AI, a dynamic layer for feedback, interaction, and correction is essential. This layer acts as a crucial mediator, forming the primary interface between these components. Structured adaptively based on factors like task importance, AI confidence, and available resources, it continuously manages the flow of information in both directions. Through ongoing feedback and correction, the dynamic layer ensures that AI enhancements are incorporated thoughtfully, preventing unchecked, opaque influences and upholding the system's commitment to transparent, interpretable, and trustworthy reasoning. This conceptual approach provides a vital control mechanism for achieving justifiable and comprehensible outcomes in hybrid cognitive systems. {Normal Think-Stat/GenAI/OtherAI Model/Modular Ensemble}.

Building upon the dynamic layer's control, a key enhancement is a "Metacognitive Umbrella". This reflective component continuously supervises and strategically prompts the system to question its own processes at critical stages: before processing to identify ambiguities or omissions (and other), during processing for reasoning consistency (and other), and after processing, before output, to critically assess the prepared output's alignment with initial task objectives, specifically evaluating the risk of misinterpretation or deviation from intended outcomes (and other). This metacognitive approach determines when clarifying questions are automatically triggered versus left to the AI component's discretion, adding self-awareness and critical reflection, and further strengthening transparent, robust reasoning. {Good Think-Stat/GenAI/OtherAI Model/Modular Ensemble}.

The specificity (or topology/geometry) of the final working structure of CCACS is one of the many aspects I, unfortunately, did not have time to fully explore (and most likely, I would not have had the necessary intellectual/health/time capacity - thankfully, humanity has you).

Speaking roughly and fuzzily, I envision this structure as a 4-layer hybrid cognitive architecture:

1) The first, fundamental layer is the so-called "Transparent Integral Core (TIC)" [Thinking Tools Model/Module]. This TIC comprises main/core nodes and edges/links (or more complex entities). For example, the fundamental proven principles of problem-solving, decision-making, etc., and their fundamental proven interconnections. It has the capability to combine these elements in stable yet adjustable configurations, allowing for incremental enhancement without limits to improvement as more powerful human or AI thinking methods emerge.

2) Positioned between the Transparent Integral Core (TIC) and the more opaque third layer, the second layer, acting dynamically and adaptively, manages (buffers/filters/etc.) interlayer communication with the TIC. Functioning as the primary lucidity-ensuring mechanism, this layer oversees the continuous interaction between the TIC and the dynamic components of the more opaque third layer, ensuring controlled operation and guarded transparent reasoning processes – ensuring transparency is maintained responsibly and effectively.

3) As the third layer, we integrate a statistical, generative AI, and other AI component layer, which is less transparent. Composed of continuously evolving and improving dynamic components: dynamic nodes and links/edges (or more complex entities), this layer is designed to complement, balance, and strengthen the TIC, potentially enhancing results across diverse challenges.

4) Finally, at the highest, fourth layer, the metacognitive umbrella provides strategic guidance, prompts self-reflection, and ensures the robustness of reasoning. This integrated, 4-layer approach seeks to create a robust and adaptable cognitive architecture, delivering justifiable and comprehensible outcomes.

...

The development of the CCACS, particularly its core Thinking Tools component, necessitates a highly interdisciplinary and globally coordinated effort. Addressing this complex challenge requires the integration of diverse expertise across multiple domains. To establish the foundational conceptual prototype (theoretically proven functional) of the Thinking Tools Model/Module, collaboration will be sought from a wide range of specialists, including but not limited to:

Cognitive Scientists

Cognitive/Experimental Psychologists

Computational Neuroscientists

Explainable AI (XAI) Experts

Interpretable ML Experts

Formal Methods Experts

Knowledge Representation Experts

Formal/Web Semantics Experts

Ontologists

Epistemologists

Philosophers of Mind

Mathematical Logicians

Computational Logicians

Computational Linguists

Traditional Linguists

Complexity Theorists

Decision Scientists

The integration of cutting-edge AI tools with advanced capabilities, including current LLMs' deep search/research and what might be described as "reasoning" or "thinking," is important and potentially very useful. It's worth noting that, as explained by different sources, this reasoning capability is still fundamentally statistical in nature - more like sophisticated mimicry or imitation rather than true reasoning. It's akin to a very sophisticated token generation based on learned patterns rather than genuine cognitive processing. Nevertheless, these technologies could be harnessed to enhance and propel collaborative efforts across various domains.

Thank you for your time and attention!

All thoughts (opinions/feedback/feelings/etc.) are always very welcome!

...

P.S. If you would like to read the article, which includes the CCACS concept presented in two different formats along with additional thoughts and links, you can visit the following link:

…

...

P.P.S. Also, purely for your entertainment, perhaps this will grant you a moment of pleasant philosophical and mathematical musings, which, not so long ago, also greatly intrigued me:

Never say never! Thanks to a reader on Ars Technica and an anonymous chemical engineer, a working copy of SimRefinery has been successfully recovered.

Two weeks ago, I published my long-in-the-works article about Maxis Business Simulations, a division of SimCity developer Maxis that made simulation games for businesses. It was the culmination of four years of research, and I’m very proud to share their story.

One of the games they produced was SimRefinery, an oil refinery simulation for Chevron. Very little was widely known about the game until now, and the article kicked off a wave of interest in SimRefinery that seems to have reached beyond gaming circles. Shortly after the article was published, it was picked up by the tech news site Ars Technica, where one reader, postbebop, reported that they knew a retired chemical engineer who worked at Chevron, who confirmed that he owned a copy of the game. postbebop walked the engineer through the process of reading the data from the original floppy disk, and he was able to create a digital copy.

They’ve uploaded the game to the Internet Archive; you can download and play it here. Huge thanks to postbebop for making this happen.

I haven’t had a chance to play SimRefinery in-depth yet besides grabbing the screenshots, but I genuinely did not expect anyone would still have a copy of this game. I’ll write a post with a close-up look at SimRefinery soon.

It’s so exciting to finally be able to play SimRefinery, and it’s worth remembering that this is one piece of a larger historical picture. It’s a big piece, for sure, but it means so much more when we have the historical context around it. Gaming history is more than just a collection of games; it’s about what they meant to the people who made them and played them. To learn more about Maxis Business Simulations and the people behind the company, please check out the full article!

Maxis, the developer of SimCity, didn’t want to make professional simulation games. But for two brief, strange years, they did.

From 1992 to 1994, a division called Maxis Business Simulations was responsible for making serious professional simulations that looked and played like Maxis games. After Maxis cut the division loose, the company continued to operate independently, taking the simulation game genre in their own direction. Their games found their way into in corporate training rooms and even went as far as the White House.

I’ve been researching Maxis Business Simulations for the last four years, and this is the culmination of all my research. I am so incredibly proud to finally share this.

For the first time ever: this is the story of Maxis Business Simulations and SimRefinery.

When SimCity got serious (read on The Obscuritory)

John Hiles wanted to learn more about artificial intelligence. Not like trying to make computers smart, because as he put it, “that turned out to be largely be baloney.” Computer technology was nowhere near advanced enough for that yet. “It’s like saying we’re gonna start building a 40-story building on the 14th floor,” Hiles said. He wanted to start lower, at the level of unconscious thinking. He had been reading about cognitive theory, and he was fascinated by how the brain makes it possible for us to do things like speak and interpret language, all without a conscious action on our part, just an instinctive behavior.

Could you make a computer think like this instead? Could you give a computer program an unconscious mind?